That's not true, there is actually a cool old neighborhood on W 41st once you get west of Hwy 75. There is a wide range of housing, like the $35k to $135k range, and that pocket has its school, park, etc. and easy access to everywhere else. Built up in the 1930s as a part of blue collar Red Fork - it used to have corner stores and everything else. It's a fairly large pocket of housing, probably the largest on the West Side, with 41st cutting directly through it. When I've been over there its pretty quiet.

Of course, the 41st St. bridge would only be a minor short cut to that area. Even if you were going to Riverside & 41st it might save 5 minutes. Probably a break even to Brookside etc. or just about anywhere else. And it seems unlikely that the bridge would encourage redevelopment or reinvestment in the area.

I'd guess if it was connected 80 years ago when the neighborhood was developing the entire development pattern might have been very different. The industry and waste water plants might not have built up along the river at this spot. But at this point in time redevelopment of the chunk of land between the refinery/PSO, HWY 75, and Cherry Creek/44 would be a very tall order for a long list of reasons. Least among them is a bridge at 41st.

That's my basic point. It would result in nothing more than a minor short cut, but would cost several millions of dollars. I don't think crossing the river is a big problem for Red Fork residents.

Very few people live in that section that is by the River that would benefit from the 41st bridge. The rest wouldn't benefit from it much. If I lived on the west side, I wouldn't care to add a bridge at that point. It wouldn't cut down on my drive to Brookside or anywhere else really. If I lived in that section like the other 50 people that do, I'd be up for a bridge but might not be happy if they turned all the woods into generic looking suburbs or apartments.

As cool as it would be to say that Amazon would have a Tulsa presence, and I know this is a completely different case, I can't help but think about how cities have reacted while hosting the Olympics. A sudden surge of people coming to the city in what can be seen as a sort of synthetic growth would cripple infrastructure. The city would most likely adjust though. What had me skeptical with the whole Amazon in Tulsa conversation is that "tech" isn't really sewn into the fabric of Tulsa.

Having lived in San Francisco for a couple years right out of college, and seeing that completely different mindset of "disruption" in Silicon Valley was a complete eye opener for me. Sure the stuff happening out there is incredibly innovative, but what all these tech companies did to the cities they operate in was actually quite sad. The people that were born and raised there simply cant afford to live there anymore! People weren't happy living there (including myself) when you see kids come right out of college, work for a tech company giving them a couple hundred thousand a year, and force you out of the place you grew up in. I could picture Tulsans (as stubborn as we are) adjusting to this type of situation by running to the hills in BA.

Now I know that Amazon isn't a start up, and it's massive success looks highly attractive, but I'm assuming Tulsans wouldn't really appreciate the sudden hike in the cost of living, traffic, and (what I experienced with tech) a collective snooty attitude coming to the city. 50,000 is A LOT of people for a city the size of Tulsa, so I don't think that we could say that these changes wouldn't be noticeable.

That being said, I am probably just ranting, but do think we might have dodged some sort of a bullet here. If anything I'm damn proud of Tulsa for actually putting itself out there for something as ambitious as this. Living in Dallas now, I have to just wait it out and see what happens (I'm rooting for DC!).

Tulsa never stood a chance - we checked almost none of the requirement boxes (major airport, population, stable government, availability of tech workers, transit, education), and can't afford to bribe them with billions of dollars in hand outs. This was obvious, though we were shouted down as "nay sayers" for speaking about the facts. I' m not upset we gave it a shot, I don't think it was an embarrassment and as the mayor said, it certainly was good practice.However, I think this editorial in Minneapolis really hits the nail on the head:

MSP checks all of the requirement boxes of Amazon. Large metro area, solid mass transit & commuter options, major hub airport, tons of tech workers, high standard of living, excellent education, great urban environment, ranks well for business friendly (#3) and ranked as the best run state government...in fact it beat out many of the finalists in all of those criteria. What they didn't have was huge corporate subsidies held out on a silver platter. They offered to discuss the issue but did not make a billion+ dollar commitment at this early stage.

The conclusion the editorial reaches:

Quote

After all there has only been one approach to landing big private employers that has ever really worked in Minnesota: That’s building them from scratch.

OneOKBOKQTSamsonHelmerich & PayneBama PieWilliamsNordamWPXWebcoCimarexAaonSemGroupExplorer PipelineOmni AirMagellan MidstreamUnit CorpSt. Francis & St. John's hospitalsU TulsaNumerous pipe builders, heat exchangers, and other manufacturing companies that employ hundreds of people... and you've never heard of.(a notable exception is AA, which was lured in 1946 after AA moved training to Ardmore & Tulsa's bomber manufacturing lines were shut down after WWII. it offered a trained workforce and 4 unused hangers)

Build a city that encourages entrepreneurs, that enables them to thrive, attracts and retains the best workers by providing a great place to live. Nashville, Austin, Portland, Salt Lake, or Minneapolis didn't get where they are by handing out incentives to draw in major employers. Success starts at home.

Tulsa never stood a chance - we checked almost none of the requirement boxes (major airport, population, stable government, availability of tech workers, transit, education), and can't afford to bribe them with billions of dollars in hand outs. This was obvious, though we were shouted down as "nay sayers" for speaking about the facts. I' m not upset we gave it a shot, I don't think it was an embarrassment and as the mayor said, it certainly was good practice.

While it is fair to say Tulsa was never a serious contender, I think the final list (with a few exceptions) shows how utterly predictable and inside-the-box Amazon is being in its selection. Nearly all the cities on there are pretty much the identical top 20 finalists you would find for any large corporate headquarters selection contest. Nashville, Austin and Raleigh are the hip smaller booming city outliers, and Columbus and Indianapolis are probably the most surprising selections. Otherwise, it is just mostly a list of safe bets and says Amazon is not likely to be daring or innovative in its selection.

I said "Very few people live in that section that is by the River that would benefit from the 41st bridge."

That is the section bound by highway 75 to the west, I44 to the south, the river to the east and Holly Refinery to the north. It does not include Red Fork. For one thing, I was being facetious when I said about 50 people live there. There are only about 100 homes in that entire area so it's really a few hundred that live there. If that area were to be redeveloped, there is a good chance most of those properties would be bought up or sold. If you're on the west side of I75, it would be much faster to take I44 to get across the river, even with a bridge at 41st street.

You seriously need to work on your reading comprehension. And you need to wake up to the reality that there will never be a bridge at 41st street and all of the Brookside residents would strongly oppose opening the door for much more crime to their neighborhood. They are far more numerous than the folks in that small section I mentioned and so they would win.

Furthermore, I grew up near the Red Fork area. I know it very well. We never considered that little section by the river Red Fork and we had no desire or need for another bridge to access Brookside.

All the people who don't live there think it would not be of benefit.... I agree with you.

I guess since there are only 50 people in Redfork, they must be right! (Deep sarcasm for anyone who didn't get it.)

Edit; there are about 20,000 people living in Redfork.

I said "Very few people live in that section that is by the River that would benefit from the 41st bridge."

That is the section bound by highway 75 to the west, I44 to the south, the river to the east and Holly Refinery to the north. It does not include Red Fork. For one thing, I was being facetious when I said about 50 people live there. There are only about 100 homes in that entire area so it's really a few hundred that live there.

I know Red Fork very well and spent quite a few years in that area. They wouldn't really benefit from the bridge. It would still be much faster to take either highway to access Tulsa.

You seriously need to work on your reading comprehension. And you need to wake up to the reality that there will never be a bridge at 41st street and all of the Brookside residents would strongly oppose opening the door for much more crime to their neighborhood. They are far more numerous than the folks in that small section I mentioned and so they would win.

Furthermore, I grew up near the Red Fork area. I know it very well. We never considered that little section by the river Red Fork and we had no desire or need for another bridge to access Brookside.

Rude? Her comment was just glib. She has no expectation that a bridge would ever be built - just expressing some wishful thinking.

Rude is the blanket statement that a bridge would open the door to Brookside for much more crime to their neighborhood....

From all those westside 'criminals' that would immediately flood into Brookside area...

Rude? Her comment was just glib. She has no expectation that a bridge would ever be built - just expressing some wishful thinking.

Rude is the blanket statement that a bridge would open the door to Brookside for much more crime to their neighborhood....

From all those westside 'criminals' that would immediately flood into Brookside area...

Is that really the message you wanted to convey??

Maybe a little writing comprehension development is in order.

What was rude was her saying I need to get out more when she misinterpreted my comment thinking I was referring to Red Fork when it was obvious I was specifically referring to the small neighborhood by the river which we were discussing.

And it is just a fact of life that building a bridge from a higher crime area/poorer area to a richer area will bring in some more crime.

What was rude was her saying I need to get out more when she misinterpreted my comment thinking I was referring to Red Fork when it was obvious I was specifically referring to the small neighborhood by the river which we were discussing.

And it is just a fact of life that building a bridge from a higher crime area/poorer area to a richer area will bring in some more crime.

Sounds like maybe we just need a wall around that area then, huh?

Just for a quick side note as to the size of that area. Since you did not bother to verify what you were talking about, I counted. There are not 100 houses there.

Between houses and mobile homes, there are about 450 - 500 units. There are also small apartment complexes (maybe 3?) there that appears to have in excess of a few hundred units in several buildings.

Just for a quick side note as to the size of that area. Since you did not bother to verify what you were talking about, I counted. There are not 100 houses there.

Between houses and mobile homes, there are about 450 - 500 units. There are also small apartment complexes (maybe 3?) there that appears to have in excess of a few hundred units in several buildings.

The lack of bridges is a natural wall. Just saying the Brookside area residents would argue that if it ever came to it. And there's more residents in one tiny section of Brookside than in all of that area on the west side. True I didn't look up exact numbers, just estimated based on the neighborhoods with houses. There's actually around 700 in that area. Still a tiny fraction of the residents in West Tulsa and far less than the same area on the other side of the river (Around 7,000 residents populating a similarly sized area on the east).

And the vast majority of people living in that west section are clustered near 51st street/I44/highway 75 so it would still be faster for them to take I44. Only a couple hundred live in the area in "Garden City" which would save time with a new bridge. And I'm guessing the kind of people that live there wouldn't want the area being gentrified as it is a high-percentage rent area and most wouldn't benefit and eventually forced out.

I said "Very few people live in that section that is by the River that would benefit from the 41st bridge."

That is the section bound by highway 75 to the west, I44 to the south, the river to the east and Holly Refinery to the north. It does not include Red Fork. For one thing, I was being facetious when I said about 50 people live there. There are only about 100 homes in that entire area so it's really a few hundred that live there. If that area were to be redeveloped, there is a good chance most of those properties would be bought up or sold. If you're on the west side of I75, it would be much faster to take I44 to get across the river, even with a bridge at 41st street.

You seriously need to work on your reading comprehension. And you need to wake up to the reality that there will never be a bridge at 41st street and all of the Brookside residents would strongly oppose opening the door for much more crime to their neighborhood. They are far more numerous than the folks in that small section I mentioned and so they would win.

Furthermore, I grew up near the Red Fork area. I know it very well. We never considered that little section by the river Red Fork and we had no desire or need for another bridge to access Brookside.

The area you speak of is called "Garden City" which is a misnomer if there ever was one. It's slowly falling apart house-by-house and trailer-by-trailer. I'm willing to bet at some point in the next 30 years all that area will be either green space purchased up by the refinery to the north or further industrialized from operations to the south.

AngieB is a life-long west-sider. I have had family who lived there and I worked there for 13 years and maintained many friendships with people who lived "over there" literally my entire life.

I put "over there" in quotes for a reason:

The west side enjoys it's own identity and sense of community but it's often been treated as a lesser part of Tulsa much like areas of north Tulsa and the barrio in east Tulsa. Some people enjoy the sense of isolation and some feel as if they are cut off from the rest of the city in a way. Don't take it personal, but your comments would seem a bit condescending to a true west-sider. I'm not trying to speak for Angie, but just explaining the cultural thought as I know it.

And I get your point about the bridge, in terms of "structural needs" it's pretty far down the list of priorities. In terms of feeling connected to the rest of the community, I can see why people would like to have it. JMO, it's a want not a need.

« Last Edit: January 25, 2018, 07:11:13 pm by Conan71 »

Logged

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan

Mission

&nbsp

"TulsaNow's Mission is to help Tulsa
become the most vibrant, diverse,
sustainable and prosperous city of
our size. We achieve this by focusing
on the development of Tulsa's
distinctive identity and economic
growth around a dynamic, urban
core, complemented by a constellation
of livable, thriving communities." more...